RAJENDRA SWAROOP KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Petitioner, Rajendra Swaroop Kashyap, has been compulsorily retired in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (in short "f. R.-56") vide order dated 17th May, 2005 issued by the respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached ' this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek ing a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order dated 17th May, 2005. He has also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to reinstate him as District and Sessions Judge with all consequential benefits including ar rears of salary and contract of service etc.

(2.) THE facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was selected for recruitment in U. P. Nyayik Sewa in the year 1972. He was appointed as Munsif-Magistrate and after completion of his training, was posted in District Judgeship, Banda where he joined on 22nd April, 1975. He was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/civil Judge in August 1983 and was further appointed by promotion in U. P. Higher Judicial' Service as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 18th March, 1987. He was granted selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 with effect from 1st January, 1986 vide order dated 8th April, 1991 and was confirmed in U. P. Higher Judicial Service vide order dated 3rt February, 1996. Selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 18750-22850 fell due to the petitioner in 1997 but it was sanctioned vide Court's order dated 29th September, 2004 though w. e. f. 12th September, 1997. In September 2004 the petitioner was posted as District Judge, Mahoba, wherefrom he was transferred to Hamirpur in April 2005. While working as District Judge, Hamirpur, he received the impugned order dated 17th May, 2005 retiring him compulsorily in public interest.

(3.) BESIDES above, in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 1994, Shrawan Kumar Yadavv. State, this Court made following remarks against the petitioner. "shown utter ignorance to the understanding of decision of High Court in considering the decision reported in the case of Prakash Dhobi v. State of U. P. , (1994 JIC101)"